No, wages are not stagnant, lefties

[Mad Scientist]

Economist Jeffrey Sachs argues that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of government spending harms an economy, and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."[88] Austrian economist Sudha Shenoy responded by arguing that countries with large public sectors have grown more slowly.[

If this assertion were true then the US Economy would be booming and Debt would be almost unknown.

 

[depotoo]

Bullshit.

Along with the crash in employment which led to either people having no income, or people like myself who had to take jobs for far less than they were formerly making..there's not only been stagnant wages..wages have been GOING DOWN.

The exception of course..is the 1%.

Plus, you have to pay state taxes in NY.

State, City and Federal. Along with real estate.

But now I am paying taxes in, count em, two states. That's along with having to purchase an automobile to get to work and all that comes along with that.

I took a huge hit.

Remember businesses are also paying all those taxes...
and more.

 

[Sallow]

Economist Jeffrey Sachs argues that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of government spending harms an economy, and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."[88] Austrian economist Sudha Shenoy responded by arguing that countries with large public sectors have grown more slowly.[

If this assertion were true then the US Economy would be booming and Debt would be almost unknown.

Why?

The US has relatively low taxation and doesn't spend much on social welfare.

Couple that with the US spends an historically high amount of money on it's military. It's unprecedented really. And economically..the military is a money pit..and a black hole.

It's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Truthmatters]

The austrain school is nothing but a sideline group who refuse most of the vast feild of economics

 

[Sallow]

Plus, you have to pay state taxes in NY.

State, City and Federal. Along with real estate.

But now I am paying taxes in, count em, two states. That's along with having to purchase an automobile to get to work and all that comes along with that.

I took a huge hit.

Remember businesses are also paying all those taxes...
and more.

No they are not.

Quite the opposite.

The US finances most businesses.

What the FUCK do you think TARP was all about????

 

[Truthmatters]

they wont accept facts.

Its why they are austrian school fools

 

[Oldguy]

One of the cries of the progressives is that the system is unfair because wages for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10/15/20 years (take your pick).
Turns out not to be true in any meaningful sense. Another liberal myth shot to hell.

Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class - WSJ.com

A favorite "progressive" trope is that America's middle class has stagnated economically since the 1970s. One version of this claim, made by Robert Reich, President Clinton's labor secretary, is typical: "After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top," he wrote in 2010, "the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going."

This trope is spectacularly wrong.

It is true enough that, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers in America has remained about the same. But not just for three decades. The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it.

Moreover, there are several problems with this measurement of wages. First, the CPI overestimates inflation by underestimating the value of improvements in product quality and variety. Would you prefer 1980 medical care at 1980 prices, or 2013 care at 2013 prices? Most of us wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter.

Second, this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS.

Third and most important, the average hourly wage is held down by the great increase of women and immigrants into the workforce over the past three decades. Precisely because the U.S. economy was flexible and strong, it created millions of jobs for the influx of many often lesser-skilled workers who sought employment during these years.

More at the source.

So, at bottom, the author is saying flat wages is pretty much alright because women and immigrants work cheaper?

Here...let me give you a real world example, not a bunch of mumbo jumbo figures and opinions.

In 1975, I went to work driving a truck at place with a union contract. During the 5 years I worked there, I never made less than $45,000 a year and my retirement program and health insurance was paid by the company.

Right now, this very day, there are thousands upon thousands of truck drivers out there not even making that much in real dollars, let alone inflation adjusted dollars, and they must fund at least a portion of their retirement and insurance benefits.

We won't even get into paid holidays, sick leave or working conditions. All of those are worse today too, but the bottom line is that wages and benefits in the trucking business haven't just remained static for 40 years...they've actually fallen! When inflation is considered, they've fallen a great deal! And, that experience has been duplicated in just about every sector of the economy except senior management.

You tell me? Is this progress?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wealth/income can be shifted upwards, towards the wealthy, and yet the average will stay the same or even rise.

The average income of 2 people, one making a million a year and one making nothing,

is 500,000 a year.

 

[depotoo]

State, City and Federal. Along with real estate.

But now I am paying taxes in, count em, two states. That's along with having to purchase an automobile to get to work and all that comes along with that.

I took a huge hit.

Remember businesses are also paying all those taxes...
and more.

No they are not.

Quite the opposite.

The US finances most businesses.

What the FUCK do you think TARP was all about????

surely you jest? Most businesses? Are you telling me that most businesses received tarp funds?
926
Recipients

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, I don't know where you dug up that tripe but it's bull shit. Middle class wages have been steadily declining while the rich, who back our so called representatives, (yeah, that also includes Obama and crew) keep making more money.
Things looked like they might be improving but now we're seeing companys hiring more temp workers instead of full time employees and cutting back hours and personnel. That is directly tied to Obamacare. I wouldn't be surprised if this recession drags out another five to six years.

It's bullshit because you say it is? Show me exactly where he's wrong. Quote figure and cite sources. Good luck.

Interesting to see all the venom here. You know you're right when the pigs start squealing.

Well if you had left off the last sentence you might have deserved a rational and reasoned reply, especially since it appears you're lumping me in with the far left loonies. I know what situation the country is in, I know what is painfully obvious to a large percentage of us, former, middle class earners despite what some would have us believe, on both ends of the loony spectrum. Try getting out of your red bubble from time to time.

Translation: I cannot refute anything said here but I just know it isn't so, dammit.

I'm lumping you in with the loony left because that's where you belong, Wookie-boy.

 

[Truthmatters]

File:United States Income Distribution 1967-2003.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

One of the cries of the progressives is that the system is unfair because wages for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10/15/20 years (take your pick).
Turns out not to be true in any meaningful sense. Another liberal myth shot to hell.

Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class - WSJ.com

A favorite "progressive" trope is that America's middle class has stagnated economically since the 1970s. One version of this claim, made by Robert Reich, President Clinton's labor secretary, is typical: "After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top," he wrote in 2010, "the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going."

This trope is spectacularly wrong.

It is true enough that, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers in America has remained about the same. But not just for three decades. The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it.

Moreover, there are several problems with this measurement of wages. First, the CPI overestimates inflation by underestimating the value of improvements in product quality and variety. Would you prefer 1980 medical care at 1980 prices, or 2013 care at 2013 prices? Most of us wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter.

Second, this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS.

Third and most important, the average hourly wage is held down by the great increase of women and immigrants into the workforce over the past three decades. Precisely because the U.S. economy was flexible and strong, it created millions of jobs for the influx of many often lesser-skilled workers who sought employment during these years.

More at the source.

So, at bottom, the author is saying flat wages is pretty much alright because women and immigrants work cheaper?

Here...let me give you a real world example, not a bunch of mumbo jumbo figures and opinions.

In 1975, I went to work driving a truck at place with a union contract. During the 5 years I worked there, I never made less than $45,000 a year and my retirement program and health insurance was paid by the company.

Right now, this very day, there are thousands upon thousands of truck drivers out there not even making that much in real dollars, let alone inflation adjusted dollars, and they must fund at least a portion of their retirement and insurance benefits.

We won't even get into paid holidays, sick leave or working conditions. All of those are worse today too, but the bottom line is that wages and benefits in the trucking business haven't just remained static for 40 years...they've actually fallen! When inflation is considered, they've fallen a great deal! And, that experience has been duplicated in just about every sector of the economy except senior management.

You tell me? Is this progress?

Anecdote is not proof.
Fail.

 

[DiamondDave]

Economist Jeffrey Sachs argues that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of government spending harms an economy, and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."[88] Austrian economist Sudha Shenoy responded by arguing that countries with large public sectors have grown more slowly.[

If this assertion were true then the US Economy would be booming and Debt would be almost unknown.

Why?

The US has relatively low taxation and doesn't spend much on social welfare.

Couple that with the US spends an historically high amount of money on it's military. It's unprecedented really. And economically..the military is a money pit..and a black hole.

It's a recipe for disaster.

How many lies can you put in one post??

Granted, we don't have Sweden level taxation, but we are hardly LOW on taxation... many MANY adult citizens are paying 40+% of their income in taxes

And we don't spend much on social welfare?? Just at the federal level it is the largest expense of the governmental system

You want a recipe for disaster?? It is the welfare state.. and you're seeing it first hand right here in this country

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

One of the cries of the progressives is that the system is unfair because wages for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10/15/20 years (take your pick).
Turns out not to be true in any meaningful sense. Another liberal myth shot to hell.

Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class - WSJ.com

A favorite "progressive" trope is that America's middle class has stagnated economically since the 1970s. One version of this claim, made by Robert Reich, President Clinton's labor secretary, is typical: "After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top," he wrote in 2010, "the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going."

This trope is spectacularly wrong.

It is true enough that, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers in America has remained about the same. But not just for three decades. The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it.

I just wanna make sure I get the argument straight. The argument that the middle class is stagnant is a "myth" because wages have been stagnant since 1964 - not since the 70's ?

 

[ZimothyTahn]

One of the cries of the progressives is that the system is unfair because wages for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10/15/20 years (take your pick).
Turns out not to be true in any meaningful sense. Another liberal myth shot to hell.

Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class - WSJ.com

A favorite "progressive" trope is that America's middle class has stagnated economically since the 1970s. One version of this claim, made by Robert Reich, President Clinton's labor secretary, is typical: "After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top," he wrote in 2010, "the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going."

This trope is spectacularly wrong.

It is true enough that, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers in America has remained about the same. But not just for three decades. The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it.

I just wanna make sure I get the argument straight. The argument that the middle class is stagnant is a "myth" because wages have been stagnant since 1964 - not since the 70's ?

if it looks retarded and sounds retarded, it's probably a conservative talking point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think what the OP is trying to say is that wages haven't stagnant in this country if you let some people with an agenda to prove that wages haven't been stagnant use THEIR set of rules that just happen to show that wages haven't been stagnant.

That's pretty close to the argument that was made by people who claimed that Romney was actually leading in the polls,

and then they used unskewedpolls.com as their measuring stick.

 

[Sallow]

Bullshit.

Along with the crash in employment which led to either people having no income, or people like myself who had to take jobs for far less than they were formerly making..there's not only been stagnant wages..wages have been GOING DOWN.

The exception of course..is the 1%.

Careful, now! Your envy and jealousy is showing.

I bet you would not complain if you were smart enough to be part of the 1%.

"Smart" has very little to do with the 1 percent.

Luck, ruthlessness and greed, however, do.

 

[Sallow]

If this assertion were true then the US Economy would be booming and Debt would be almost unknown.

Why?

The US has relatively low taxation and doesn't spend much on social welfare.

Couple that with the US spends an historically high amount of money on it's military. It's unprecedented really. And economically..the military is a money pit..and a black hole.

It's a recipe for disaster.

How many lies can you put in one post??

Granted, we don't have Sweden level taxation, but we are hardly LOW on taxation... many MANY adult citizens are paying 40+% of their income in taxes

And we don't spend much on social welfare?? Just at the federal level it is the largest expense of the governmental system

You want a recipe for disaster?? It is the welfare state.. and you're seeing it first hand right here in this country

There's no lies.

You contradicted yourself too.

And the largest Federal expense..is the military.

That's just the "military" we know about.

There are other expenses that are military in nature that are classified.

 

[Freemason9]

This is not a liquidity trap. This is an inequality trap, and wealth inequality in America has shifted spectaculary to the top 1% since Ronald Reagan upended the taxation structure in the early 80's. This wouldn't happen if the wage structure hadn't tipped as well.

HINT: As union membership declines relative to percentages, general wage levels decline as well. That's a fact, and that's why the Republican Party has always hated unions. They want to lower wages to workers--they hate workers.

 

[Ringel05]

It's bullshit because you say it is? Show me exactly where he's wrong. Quote figure and cite sources. Good luck.

Interesting to see all the venom here. You know you're right when the pigs start squealing.

Well if you had left off the last sentence you might have deserved a rational and reasoned reply, especially since it appears you're lumping me in with the far left loonies. I know what situation the country is in, I know what is painfully obvious to a large percentage of us, former, middle class earners despite what some would have us believe, on both ends of the loony spectrum. Try getting out of your red bubble from time to time.

Translation: I cannot refute anything said here but I just know it isn't so, dammit.

I'm lumping you in with the loony left because that's where you belong, Wookie-boy.

Given that statement you've just confirmed the obvious. As far as you're concerned anyone to the left of Michele Bachmann is a socialist or communist.......
Keep up the good work sparky....... Put's you on a par with TM and rdean..........